danny e. wrote:yeah.. it's decent in gaming. I dont think the processors matter so much anymore for gaming.. it's all about the video card.

Going from an E6420 overclocked to 3.2GHz (65nm dual-core) to a Q9550 overclocked to 3.4GHz made a pretty big difference, considering that I already had a GTX260 installed and 4GB of RAM (now 8GB). The GPU is the most important for getting those framerates, but if you want them to be smooth, you're going to have to take the CPU into account. Having enough cores running at a decent speed goes a long way toward making a smooth gaming experience, regardless of the GPU!

Very Interested... Matched with a less expensive components like a motherboard, AMD seems like a bargain in comparison. I should also note that it seems like the Phenom II X4 965 is a favorite for some REALLY big discounts on newegg the last I looked. They had over 3-4 combo's bringing the price of the CPU down by between 30-45!!! Making it closely matched with its little brother the 955 (which so happens to be the same damn chip just not clocked as high)

Thanks Danny, your not as lazy as you said you would be we appreciate it.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

There is one major problem with that table; it doesn't take into account the cost of the rest of the system.

If an Intel CPU is 100% more expensive than an AMD CPU with "only" 50% higher performance, it still might be the better choice, if the CPU cost is only 25% of the system cost.

Look at it this way: would you pay an extra 25% for you system if that means 50% better performance? Or, for those who are percentage-challenged, would you rather pick a $500 system with a SUPERDUPERMARK score of 1000, or a $625 system with a SUPERDUPERMARK score of 1500?

I persoanlly think that AMD is better Intel is just a brand name that everyone recognizes. AMD has just as good processors,CHEAPER and just as fast.But dont get me wrong intel i7 xtreme is sick, im planning on getting it on my new coolmaster tower i just bought cant wait till its done!!!

It's not quite that simple though - if you read the tech report articles (which are some of the best on the net no doubt) you'll see that for gaming the time between frames is actually the most important thing for smooth game play and a good experience. For this you need a good cpu but also good memory, good chipset and good general motherboard design (and maybe an SSD to minimize in-game load-times). The i7 is still king of the hill it seems when it comes to gaming and AMD - sadly - are lagging behind a bit. There really are no short-cuts if you want the best - you've got to think of the system as a whole with all the components interacting with each other.

If I was building a new dedicated gaming PC today I'd probably go for the simplest i7 (to get the 4xRam channels and X79) or middle of the road i5-ivy. These will give you the best gaming experience according to the tech report articles.

Unfortunately benches don't tell the real performance of current CPUs as far as system performance goes. The synthetic benches help characterise and somewhat quantify the processor's potential but they don't show you for instances that any of the mid-range priced CPUs are plenty fast enough for 90% of consumers including enthusiasts.

Many years ago when we were working with slow CPUs the benches were more useful because they indicated what you actually could do with a CPU based on time. Today any modern desktop CPU/system is more than fast enough to run any common app or video without issues. ULV laptop APUs like Intel with poor graphics such as the HD 2500 may not be viable for video games but AMD's laptop Llano and Trinity certainly are fully capable and they can run any application desired without issue nor apology

Until PC hardware reviewers start comparing actual system performance running real apps, most consumers really won't know what CPU, APU or GPU is really best for their needs.

The way to rationalize more expensive CPUs to yourself is to count the cost of the motherboard and RAM. This may push the optimum to the middle of the processor series, but the bleeding edge top-end is never a good value.

sandralambert wrote:The way to rationalize more expensive CPUs to yourself is to count the cost of the motherboard and RAM. This may push the optimum to the middle of the processor series, but the bleeding edge top-end is never a good value.

A rational way to look at it, and a good first post (welcome to TR!)

Sadly, with deals and ever-changing prices I don't think this thread is ever going to get the update it deserves - I just price the cost of the CPU and motherboard (or CPU, motherboard and RAM if it's an AMD A-series relying on integrated graphics) and look at performance/cost based on the easiest-to-browse retailer (ebuyer in my case, probably newegg in your case).

Some people ask me why I have always enclosed my signature in spoiler tags; There is a good reason for that, but I can't elaborate without giving away the plot twist.